Sexual harassment on the Tube could be tackled with [redacted], the Minister for Women has said.
Go on, guess.
She said: "Having a campaign on the Tube carriages about 'Please don't think this gives you the right to grab someone', that could be very effective because you are all standing up ... pressed together, looking at the advert, you can't avoid it.
"I'd be interested in a targeted campaign if the evidence was that that would be a good way to spend taxpayers' money."
How did we end up with 'Tories' like these?
How did we end up with 'Tories' like these?
ReplyDelete...because the Great British Public in its collective wisdom voted for them, which tells us more about the Great British Electorate than about the politicians they chose.
Oh sorry, was that a rhetorical question?
ReplyDeleteNo --a public statement that you are a idiot is a valuable thing.
Merely look across the HoC to note the universal lack of quality among MPs.
It is a lack reflected in the womiccumalobus* trash that presently pollutes the UK. Mostly remainiacs like Ketch himself. Perhaps the old timers were right and we should have smashed the long-haired leftist scum of the sixties. They are the progenitors of today's SOS.
*Well Off MIddle Class CUltural MArxist LOndon BUbble Scum
SOS=Sacks of Shite
At the last election I held my nose and voted Conservative because I was horrified by the prospect of Corbyn becoming PM. For this reason only.
ReplyDeleteShe should also be aware that the forces of prudery have been desperately searching for a link between porn and sex crime for decades. There is a link but it goes in entirely the opposite direction to the way that they are trying to prove it is.
Yeah a targeted campaign will do it! Why not use one of those blasted soashul meja campaigns which the politicians are all so convinced us sheep pay so much attention to?
ReplyDelete[1of2]
ReplyDelete‘How did we end up with 'Tories' like these?’
(Not forgetting the wretched excuses for MPs that Labour have.)
We started ***paying*** the swine.
MPs only became salaried in 1911 and we had better MPs when they were sans salaries and expenses than ever since: J.S. Mill, Edmund Burke, radicals like William Cobbett, PMs such as Pitts Elder and Younger, Canning, Peel, Palmerston, Salisbury, etc. Other than Churchill, who have we had since that compares to such political titans?
With few opportunities to dip one’s snout into the taxpayers’ trough, entering politics was seen more as a service to one’s country. Being unsalaried, it required them to have actual talent: to make money (as ex-Sergeant Major Cobbett did, who financed himself through his writing) or to convince a patron that they were worthy of their support (as Burke convinced Lord Verney and William Hamilton), or to have made their fortune before entering politics (such as successful naval officers, rich from prizes, like Sir Edward Pellew—who some believe the inspiration for Patrick O’Brian’s Jack Aubrey).
MPs once saw their job as simply steering safely Plato’s ‘Ship of State’, taking in a reef here, setting full sail there, battening down the hatches and seeking safe harbour when necessary—not be forever trying to rebuild the entire ship from the keel up while swinging around the masts shouting ‘Look at me!’, as our MPs do now, seeking headlines for their latest whim to radically reshape our country. For many, being an MP was part-time (and being unpaid, the public little minded them taking long holidays or concentrating on their businesses), with MPs such as John Norris, who combined representing Rye (1708–22, 1734–49) and Portsmouth (1722–34) with a Royal Naval career, commanding operational cruises to the Baltic; and Admiral Thomas Cochrane (the inspiration for C.S. Forester’s Hornblower) who led daring expeditions against Buonaparte’s forces in the Med while representing Westminster constituency (1807–18). Now, our MPs constantly try to ‘be seen to do something’, perpetually passing new laws and regulations to nag us with.
[2of2]
ReplyDeleteThen there is the endlessly expanding electorate to consider. As a legacy of the long-gone Empire, citizens of at least 53 foreign countries are allowed to vote in all our elections and referenda, few of which reciprocate (e.g. Australia, Canada) or are recognisable democracies (e.g. Zimbabwe)—some are not even former British colonies (e.g. Mozambique, Rwanda). Criminals too—the only crims excluded from voting are those actually incarcerated—the moment the convicted nonce, rapist or murderer is released on parole, (s)he is eligible to vote. E.g. this creature tortures an old woman to death, is released after a mere 11 years to pop out low-IQ welfare-recipients—and she can vote, and her vote has equal weight to our most successful businessmen, scientists, doctors and VC-winners.
https://www.yourvotematters.co.uk/can-i-vote/who-can-register-to-vote
https://www.yourvotematters.co.uk/can-i-vote/which-elections-can-i-vote-in
With a very restricted franchise at the beginning of the 19th C, we were electing Pitt and Wellington. But we kept expanding the electorate by lowering the value of the property franchise, and by the end of the 19th, we were electing the opium-imbibing surrender-monkey Gladstone. Then came the 1918 Representation of the People Act and all a person needed to vote was to be born and stay alive until they were 21.
Kings did not strip Britons of our liberties, nor a parliament composed of social elites elected by a restricted and equally elite electorate. This was done by ‘people’s’ parliaments full of oiks elected by the enfranchised masses.
E.g. far from banning arms, our kings once mandated the bearing of arms (e.g. Henry II’s Assize of Arms of 1181) as his subjects were expected to take an active part in the maintenance of the King’s Peace (law & order) and defence of his Realm.
E.g. peers opposed the creation of police as ‘the most dangerous and effective engine of despotism’—and as a consequence, our police were divided into small, locally accountable forces emphasising ‘policing by consent’ instead of being a national, paramilitary body; and as our police progressively come under the central control of our ‘people’s’ parliaments, so they become ever more the ‘engine of despotism’ those elites warned against.
E.g. While in 1604 Sir Edward Coke could declare that ‘the house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress’ and in 1763 Pitt the Elder say, ‘The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!’, now 266 powers allow entrance to our homes, introduced as our franchise expanded and, as commonly defined, we became more “““democratic”””—185 since 1970 alone.
Democracy is increasingly proving a mistake.
"Oh sorry, was that a rhetorical question?"
ReplyDeleteKinda.... ;)
"No --a public statement that you are a idiot is a valuable thing."
It would be. If it stood out!
"There is a link but it goes in entirely the opposite direction to the way that they are trying to prove it is."
Indeed!
"...now 266 powers allow entrance to our homes, introduced as our franchise expanded and, as commonly defined, we became more “““democratic”””—185 since 1970 alone."
And the list shows no sign of getting shorter.